Google brings Chrome’s renderer to IE with browser plugin

Google plans to drag Internet Explorer into the world of modern Web browsing …

A number of modern Web features cannot be used pervasively on the Internet because Microsoft's dominant browser, Internet Explorer, often fails to support current and emerging standards. Google has a plan to drag IE into the world of modern browsing by building a plugin that will allow it to use Chrome's HTML renderer and high-performance JavaScript engine.

Microsoft has recently taken promising steps forward by engaging with the standards community and adding much-needed features in Internet Explorer 8. Although this demonstrates a willingness to improve, it doesn't change the fact that Microsoft is still lagging far behind other browser vendors. Perhaps more troubling than the deficiencies of IE8 is the tragic longevity of IE6, which was released in 2001 and is long overdue for retirement. Some companies unfortunately cannot give it up, either, because they depend on proprietary Web software that only supports legacy versions of IE.

Google hopes that delivering Chrome's rendering engine in an IE plugin will provide a pragmatic compromise for users who can't upgrade. Web developers will be able to use an X-UA-Compatible meta tag to specify that their page should be displayed with the Chrome renderer plugin instead of using Internet Explorer's Trident engine. This approach will ensure that the Chrome engine is only used when it is supposed to and that it won't disrupt the browser's handling of legacy Web applications that require IE6 compatibility.

Installing a plugin is arguably less disruptive to users than migrating them to a different browser. It is unclear, however, if IT departments that refuse to upgrade their users to a better browser are going to be comfortable deploying new plugins. I discussed this issue with Google software engineer Alex Russel and group product manager Mike Smith who cited the ubiquity of Flash as an example of how the plugin strategy could have the potential to move the Web forward.

We asked Google if it will be providing packages and tools to make it easier for IT departments to deploy the plugin. It's still much too early for that, Google explained, but it's something that Google might explore when the project matures. The search giant will, however, provide scripts and other mechanisms that Web developers can integrate into their pages to encourage Internet Explorer users to install the plugin.

Google is opening the source code now to get feedback and assistance with testing. The plugin will include Google's speedy V8 JavaScript engine, support for Canvas, SVG, and all of the other features that users enjoy today in Chrome. That also includes the next-generation CSS rendering features of WebKit such as rounded corners. The pages will look just like they would if they were rendered in Chrome.

Mozilla has previously experimented with similar initiatives, but none that match this scope. Mozilla's Screaming Monkey project, for example, aims to make Mozilla's JavaScript engine accessible through IE as a plugin. Mozilla also has an experimental prototype that provides the Canvas element as a plugin.

Google is going much further by providing the entire renderer. If the plugin is adopted by a sufficiently broad number of users, then Web developers will never again have to contend with IE's limitations. It could also open the door for adoption of HTML 5 and other important emerging standards.

Does this seem like a huge slap in the face to any-one else? :P My friend is a HUGE Microsoft Fanboy and refuses to believe that he "needs" anything else, which is fine I suppose, more power to him. But after reading this article, it seems like Google and Mozilla are trying to push they're "slower" younger brother in the right direction. It just seems like they're going to take Microsoft's homework and finish it themselves so they can all move forward.

The difference is that Flash (bar the recent introduction of Silverlight) has never been direct competition. Microsoft will never support this themselves and as such its success will be wholly dependent on admins and developers willingness to incorporate it into their existing workflow.

However interesting this may be as an exercise the only way to deal with IE is to treat it as the second class citizen it is. In reference to IE6 the quicker we just stop acknowledging it's existence altogether the quicker it will die off completely.

However interesting this may be as an exercise the only way to deal with IE is to treat it as the second class citizen it is. In reference to IE6 the quicker we just stop acknowledging it's existence altogether the quicker it will die off completely.

That would be nice except IE6 shows up a lot in intra-nets.

Edit: dual-engine browsers are nothing new. Netscape awhile back had a Windows browser that allowed switching between trident and their engine.

The bigger question for enterprises will be: Will it use domain policy restirctions that IE will use, or will it have to be managed with it's own set of policies, or will it be unmanaged entirely? If it ends up being just another browser deployment, it won't be any different than running Chrome or Firefox alongside IE for IT departments, and it will flop.

They need to make it easy for admins, not just for users. Anything that makes it more expensive to manage the desktop is not worth it just for some faster javascript.

It's an interesting concept, but why bother when you can switch to another browser almost as easily. I mean come on, it's not like installing Firefox or Chrome and using them is difficult. If people haven't figured out that IE is always behind in some way (whether it's security or web standards), then it's time to leave them in the dust, not stoop to their level.

I would applaud this, except that it means one can't even rely on the rendering engine in IE8 being consistent. It adds yet another variation that has to be tested and coded for. Once the meta tag is included then you need to somehow determine which rendering engine is actually being used and enable/disable the IE8 specific hacks that might have been included. If there is a way to lock the plug-in in for all pages then it becomes even more confusing.

Who cares? The quicker Microsoft moves to kill off IE because their rendering engine is no longer used, the happier everyone else that's standards-compliant will be.. of course Microsoft will probably try to update the software to break Google's plugin. But then again, these people don't upgrade anyway, so they're stymied And this will happen when pigs fly...

Shame the IE team isn't even talking IE9 yet. You need to die IE because you still aren't evolving fast enuf yet Silverlight is coming up with new revisions in about 6-8 months. And Google, why can't you just write plugins for IE and get rid of Chrome then?

Grabbed it for my work system that's stuck with IE6. Should I notice anything? The news page still looks borked here (in regards to line seperators / buttons overlapping each other) - guess nothing's new.

Originally posted by Chronotriggerjm: But after reading this article, it seems like Google and Mozilla are trying to push they're "slower" younger brother in the right direction. It just seems like they're going to take Microsoft's homework and finish it themselves so they can all move forward.

If this approach turns out to be successful then Microsoft should be shamed from ever mentioning the word 'internet' again. But we all know that people like Ballmer do not know the meaning of the word 'shame', and will blithely introduce the next proprietary MS technology for his 80% user base to swallow.

Originally posted by Fentras:Grabbed it for my work system that's stuck with IE6. Should I notice anything? The news page still looks borked here (in regards to line seperators / buttons overlapping each other) - guess nothing's new.

Did you read the article? The web page needs to specify that it wants to be rendered with chrome frame.

Originally posted by Fentras:Grabbed it for my work system that's stuck with IE6. Should I notice anything? The news page still looks borked here (in regards to line seperators / buttons overlapping each other) - guess nothing's new.

If the page doesn't have the requisite tag to force it to render in GCF, then you won't see anything different. You can manually force the rendering in GCF by appending the URL with "cf:", e.g cf:http://arstechnica.com

I have also read there is a method to force the GCF to render all pages, but then you loose compatibility with whatever it is that you're forced to keep IE6 for in the first place.

If successful, Google will achieve enough market share that web developers have to worry about its quirks as well as IE, Mozilla, Safari, and Opera. So, it will just be another contribution to the confusion.

Originally posted by tuxplorer:Shame the IE team isn't even talking IE9 yet. You need to die IE because you still aren't evolving fast enuf yet Silverlight is coming up with new revisions in about 6-8 months. And Google, why can't you just write plugins for IE and get rid of Chrome then?

Originally posted by Fentras:Grabbed it for my work system that's stuck with IE6. Should I notice anything? The news page still looks borked here (in regards to line seperators / buttons overlapping each other) - guess nothing's new.

Did you read the article? The web page needs to specify that it wants to be rendered with chrome frame.

From the comments to this point, it looks like there's about 2 people that noticed this - you and I.

Back on track:If the add-in needs a meta-tag from the website, it is pretty useless - very few sites will actually do that. Even if they do, they'll still need to maintain the IE workarounds for the majority of IE users who do not have the add-in.

It's a good PR move, but I simply can't see the point of it beyond that.

This sounds great, but I don't see how it will do anything to help unseat IE6.

There are two kinds of IE6 users:

- People who don't know/care to upgrade- People who have to use it at work because of legacy web apps that require it

If the first group of people won't upgrade to IE8 because they don't know about it or they don't care, why would they install this plugin? If they're going to bother to install this, they can just install IE8 - what's the difference? Either way, they have to go out of their way to install something.

If the second group of people are stuck with IE6 because their company mandates it, they can just install Chrome alongside it. If the IT department doesn't allow them to do so, then I highly doubt they'll let them install this plugin - again, what's the difference? Why would an IT department ban you from installing Chrome, but let you install a plugin that loads Chrome's rendering engine in IE, which is the same thing?

I just don't see who this would be useful for. All that said, at least it's a slap in the face to MS - Google is basically saying, "your browser is so bad, we're just going to finish it for you" :-D

Originally posted by Echohead2:Why would I want to ruin IE by putting Chrome in it instead of the IE render engine? Some people just have too much MS-hate.

*shivers* have you ever used IE6? Even on modern day benchmarks Chrome consistently spanks IE8 around... It's not to say IE8 isn't better than previous iterations, but in my opinion, it's no Chrome :/

First off - anything on the market today [sans previous IE versions] spanks IE8 around like a bad monkey.

Second [not pertaining to the above] - it's real simple. Web Devs should tell IE6/ IE7 hold outs to "F" Off and simply code adhering to web standards and compliance. Add a disclaimer to any site they develop that it best performs in Crome or FF or Safari - or whatever they code for and add links for the user to upgrade. If it's important enough - folks will bother their IT peeple.

My day job consists of locked down PCs. Where IT manages them like a dirty Pimp. However - after about 10 of us said something to IT - they not only upgraded IE to v8 - they added in current versions of Chrome - FF and Safari and we get to use what the hell we want.

Also this article is a little off - as the adoption of IE6 dropped to at least 3rd place for most used browser back in Feb of this year. FF 3.x has been the 2nd most used browser behind IE7.

Originally posted by Echohead2:Why would I want to ruin IE by putting Chrome in it instead of the IE render engine? Some people just have too much MS-hate.

*shivers* have you ever used IE6? Even on modern day benchmarks Chrome consistently spanks IE8 around... It's not to say IE8 isn't better than previous iterations, but in my opinion, it's no Chrome :/

IE8's main target seems to be IT departments.

Although the rendering engine isn't as advanced and the JavaScript execution speed is simply awful by contemporary standards, there have been at least a couple of recent articles on Ars that seem to suggest the IE8 is actually the most secure browser available. Setting aside the inevitable backhanded "switch to (Linux|a Mac) for security" comments, this is not a minor consideration for end users, who often couldn't care less what web designers have to go through to get a site to display properly on their browser.

Hopefully Microsoft's recent foray into the HTML5 standard is a sign that they are delving deeply into more advanced rendering. And I would be genuinely surprised if someone isn't working on a better JavaScript engine for IE9 -- Microsoft actually does know a thing or two about optimized execution engines, JIT compiling, and all the other constituent parts. Remember back in the 90s when they built a Java JIT compiler for Windows that utterly destroyed Sun's?